n a message dated 12/27/01 10:16:35 AM, email@example.com writes:
Dick has offered two articles in the websites above that present the heart
of his position, i.e., that Adam was a real, historical figure and was
introduced into an already populated world.
Neither George Murphy nor Paul Seely, as far as I know, have dealt with his
research as such. Rather, in the recent exchange they marshaled theological
arguments why they think Dick is wrong.
George wrote: <<I think Dick's approach is a valiant attempt at a concordist
interpretation of early Genesis, but I also consider such
interpretations in general to be futile & unnecessary. Adam & Eve are
theological figures who represent the first human beings, as part of the
fact that in a broader sense they represent all humans. >>
This is a criticism of Dick's motivation and a theological statement that,
however, does not address Dick's evidence on which he bases his
Paul wrote: <<When the individual [Adam] appears in v. 3, he is so merged
with the universal Adam of Gen 1, that it is impossible to disentangle him
and make him less than the father of all mankind.>>
Again, more theological arguments.
All Dick is asking, as I understand him, is for his historical and
anthropological research to be addressed in its own right. I agree with him.
His two articles are available on the website given above. Why doesn't
someone evaluate them in terms of the data and conclusions he presents rather
than whether his research agrees with one's favored theological theories?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 30 2001 - 08:08:19 EST